You've completed an Ri presentation mate, you've made it!

You did as well as you could given the parameters. It's a tricky thing, ways to Truth, I mean. Censorship of any kind is detrimental to free society. Yet are we truly free? Thanks i enjoyed your insight

Those who built the web are also not free from censorship. .😂😂

i felt they were good answers given the circumstances.

Another major issue is the reality that consensus isn't a truth maker. Who defines truth and can we know it? Modern science is built on the presumption of methodological natural materialism. Yet theism (be it pantheism or monotheism or simply dualism) has been and presently is by a large margin the dominant human viewpoint of our species history: atheism has been the minor view at all points in history. Its well documented that sociologists point to the adaptive benefits of theism: hope in hopeless situations, assurance of a 'greater' purpose in light of our present suffering/catastrophes, peace in tumultuous times since this life isn't our end, etc. But if these things explain away theism as a mere result of natural processes, yet the 'consensus' by popular belief is that its true but is factually false, how can we trust they same system to produce true beliefs. Thus we have another issue here, both that consensus isn't a truth maker and neither is adaptive benefit. Knowing reality is far more difficult than doing 'science' for we will never get away from metaphysics. Sure experiments may falsify certain aspects but proofs are something entirely different. No machine built by or influenced by man will ever nor can ever see without bias. This is why Nietzsche said might makes right: if you can force others to assent then you control the narrative and thus can dictate the consensus. This lies at the heart of all tyranny. No human or group of such is capable of being master... tyranny is the inevitable end yet without governance chaos ensues. True liberty lies in being self governed. Yet without agreement on social norms or interpersonal interaction norms absolute liberty leads to anarchy. The acceptable line of loss of freedom to what degree of tyranny is and every will be a grey area.

Or "There are people much better qualified to talk about this than me."

We need more Tom's in politics... I hate the fact that politicians never say "I don't know"

leave it to the linguist to be accurate about information transmitted.

They're thanking Tom, and appreciating his work. Or rather, the other way around: They're thanking Tom for the work he's done, which includes the research _and_ the presentation.

The claps are only a parasocial bond builder. Don't question, just watch the ads ;)

They are thanking their perception of Tom for presenting their perception of Tom´s work. He was (generally) coinciding with their preconceived views enough to be expressing gratitude in the manner expected of them by tradition and they felt pleasantly challenged and educated and probably thought they spent their afternoon wisely. And then mostly forgot about it within half an hour.

@@Ludifant That was a good description. I agree that Tom Scott rarely challenges my world view, but he does expand on it. That he is not a one trick pony, but can also be very entertaining is not a bad thing however. In my opinion Tom balances the educational side and the personal side very well. Rarely going for the obvious sponsorships or begging that is some of the UKposts/patreon/gameplay parasocial activity. Tom has built a reputation in key areas, and he is paid for giving talks in areas he has knowledge, and the occasional entertainment as well. As he should be.

*Woosh*

different sides of the same coin.

To get considerable effect out of a deep fake video one has to imitate someone with broad influence: the affected persons will have to make extra effort to debunk such falsities via more reliable, more official sources of information. Since the misuse of someone's identity is one of the more serious crimes and the media consequences can be relatively quickly counteracted, the effort that goes into a deepfake versus its payoff makes such attempts in my opinion not so attractive. I think the majority of us in the "West", regardless of our other values, agrees upon the malevolence of faking others' identity. Simply because we realize how quickly it would lead to unmanageable chaos even in everyday life. As we could sadly see during the pandemic, the real problems (which last from at least the times of Sumer) simply stem from the complexity of topics involving whole societies. Questions barely exhausting even the capabilities of advanced institutions naturally stir up primal insecurities in most of us, which are then ventilated according to our personalities/worldviews (which are of course affected by actual happenings and their interpretations... So we would have to choose wisely in which activities we need/wish to engage in). Biggest long-term dangers aside economic/ecologic crises lie in unreasonable/unrealistic demands of masses on politicians, which can lead to the resurrection of such antisystemic forces which aren't able to provide viable alternatives to those financial/power/control structures they wish to replace/repair. The solution to most challenges humanity faces lies in making lots of large scale compromises (changes!) while preserving the benefits of modern ways of life, which is possible only trough innovations and some restraint. Most of us in the west would like to have life standards we are used to nowadays. However, will preservation only without much chance for improvement be motivating enough for us to stay in race with non-western lifestyle? Or will the desire for comfort and insurances "infect" such percentage of the economically more relevant population that a global collapse is inevitable?

I was wondering whether indimidating was another actual word or was it a spelling typo of intimidating because it strangely felt like such a word could exist, but I think it was a typo since I didn't find any results on google. It messed with my brain for quite a bit.

@@JohnnyBooi indimidating actually does sound intimidating, unlike "intimidating".

@@VivekYadav-ds8oz ikr. As a not-native English speaker, I spent some time just assuming that « intimidating » had related meaning to « intimate »

It’s somewhat confusing to see Tom Scott described as intimidating. I don’t know the guy obvs, just don’t get remotely the same impression

@@potmki6601 huh, I see it more connected to 'timid'

Absolutely underappreciated.

The one about echo chamber vs. unmoderated open forum was crazy good. I did basically the exact same thing Tom did when he realized that and just went "woah boy"

That would make us members of the same social group. Hello! See you at the meeting.

A desk is made to be used! This is the third copy of the original Faraday desk and each of them has seen chemical splashes, explosions and many famous bums.

I like to think it's what Faraday would want ❤

It was a mild shock for me too. I would not dare sit on that historic table. But then, I am not likely to ever even be allowed into that room...

I'm pretty new here. What history?

@@ignorasmus I mean, historical objects exist to be used. Treating it with reverence and superstition, instead of just using it as furniture with history, is honestly kind of weird.

@@ppppppqqqppp I see your point. (Except that I don't see any superstitious connotations here.) A lot of people - specially collectors, museum curators, enthusiasts etc might disagree.

@@dinowibisono99 Unless I am mistaken, it is the historic and iconic table upon which Michael Faraday himself had made his demonstrations about electromagnetism and other things.

Here's hoping that by commenting, UKposts notes your engagement and recommends similar stuff later.

But on the other end you have that fact checking and arguing every statement you make in comments so that the message gets taken at face value is work. Frankly most people are lazy, and don't put that much effort into it. So a persons name becomes the fact check. (oh its this and this, he hasn't lied yet) Does that work? Yes and no.

That reminded me to turn my speakers volume back down, before blasting something else way too loud. THX :P

Just turn up the volume, that's what the volume control is meant for

@@MiChAeLoKGB THX as in 'thanks' or as in the THX sound?

@@shmotten it was meant as thanks :)

@@MiChAeLoKGB Haha alright, though THX would've worked just as well!

Diversity of identity is needed as lived experience is important. Two white guys talking about what black guys experience means a lot less that than a black guy giving his first hand account. You also can't represent both sides of every argument in perfect equality, good example being climate change. One of those sides is almost definitely wrong and to entertain that is just to invite damaging discourse which can, has, and will further damage our society.

@@auberry8613 discourse can never be 'damaging to society' only actions can.

@@bbgun061 The former leads to the latter. Neo-Nazis don't go and run over people with cars just because they feel like it, they do it because the political ideology behind them.

@@bbgun061 Discourse is action.

Maybe narrative diversity would be better. A representative from each echo chamber. If your echo chamber is the standard leftie techie globalist one, of course you are in favor of an algorithm that can automatically purge voices that disagree with you. But there are enormous philosophical challenges in saying this or that thing is true. I would have enjoyed more discussion of why his tribe feels it has the right to arbitrate truth. The dominant narrative is not usually completely true. He made the example in the introduction to the other video, but then adopted a, "we all know who needs suppressing so I don't need to discuss what truth is" attitude.

I... don't know if you've paid attention to the internet much, but... gravitating toward oppressive _inoffensiveness_ is... _really_ not a concern. xD

​​@@barefootalien You truly misunderstood their comment if you say that. They make it clear that a place like China dictating inofensiveness enforces cultural norms people in the west would argue are barbaric. It's literally already and issue and was brought up in this talk by Tom When different people existing, when different ways of life, historical events and science are deemed offensive because they challenge the stories cultures and governments tell, oppressive inoffensiveness dictated by the majority is a nightmare.

I think the missing common denominator here is common sense.

Easy solution, tell the algorithms to reduce the cuntiness in everyones lives

@@mito._ No such thing. It´s only common sense, that there is such a thing as common sense, making it a closed loop without meaning.

@@mito._ "common sense". Are you serious?

He also mentions that they both give rise to a similar result (radicalization of viewpoints, exodus of moderate participants) So the slider is shaped like a horseshoe with the ends very close together

Grin, perhaps?

The risk is that people or institution go for the easy way of adressing that Unification of thought/opinion, rather than trying to build brigde between each and every possible thought and opinon

But yeah school or something else should definitly teach us about our cognitif bias, critiqual thinking, and how to communicate and understand others. I think it should be like language, you use it in everything and it's a big domain Well those thing not teached yet should be just as important and big For now it's just up to the parents to try and teach some of them

Can't change human nature. I fear it may be a problem that is much too tremendous to really solve. I think the best thing we can do is to promote peaceful reasoned but honest discourse. I believe near-absolute free speech (with the right to mute) must prevail because it seems like the most straightforward way to make it so people are not be at each other's throats. Whatever "hate and intolerance" mean, they're better than violence. Discourse, self-restraint and the practice of ethics are some of the key things that separate us from the beasts. But using that as a moral foundation presumes that people will be thinking reasonably and speaking in good faith. For sure that raises doubts. The answer to these doubts is responsibility. If we spread the word (giving arguments that everyone must be responsible for their own actions), fewer and fewer people will be able to come up with excuses for doing evil. To the extent that this might be possible but not quite so, this is the only hole I can see in my view, but at least it'll mean that whenever we're practising morality we'll always be working on fixing the problems that arise from the conflicts between morality and human nature. Policies that try to control human behaviour would be worse because it'd invalidate the very foundation of morality: free will. I'm not sure it'd be worth living a life that has no free will. Worse yet, I challenge you to consider the implications of destroying our free will. Try to figure out how morality can exist without free will. The concept of a moral value we ascribe to rules and behaviours is nonexistent to a life without free will because moral questions must be genuinely deliberated by the consciousness, otherwise the being without consciousness or free will cannot have reasons to judge something as moral or immoral. So taking us in that direction is surely a bad thing. Morality is not about being nice. Morality is about constraining your own evil and creating good through the maintaining of your own vigilance.

@@cedleonard123 “Whatever ‘hate and intolerance’ mean, they're better than violence” Not always. Violence inflicts wounds of the flesh, which, provided they aren't too severe, heal over time. “Hate and intolerance” often inflicts wounds of the soul, which may not heal so readily.

And also some QA mechanism to force a certain amount of content diversity to be shown, to combat echo chambers and homogenization.

There's also the problem in defining "diverse". To some, it means race, gender, or socioeconomic background. To others, it means level of education, socioeconomic status, and political opinions and preferences. In other words, is it diverse if they look different but think alike?

​@@menachemsalomon There's also the issue of culture and language, the hardest part to implement imo. This goes back to Tom's point about how things are being fixed by these big platforms in English first

Does any mentally sane person with IQ above 80 and age above 12 feel an obligation to follow blindly the YT algorithm? If an adult doesn't know after some years of trial and error what "content" s/he wishes to see and how to find it, the problem is elsewhere... Of course we have limited capacities and most of us will not have such knowledge on any of the topics involving the whole humanity as to be a valuable contributor to the solutions... But that doesn't mean that some educated people can not work on algorithms at least trying to prevent the masses to became a more active part of the problem. Naturally, if the most influential efforts are only (mostly) profit oriented at the cost of more long-term strategies, we can't wonder at the resulting situations

Bad headphones?

I thoroughly disagree. From a scientific perspective. Biologically, we are wired and built to contend with adversarial factors in nature, throughout our lives. We play, we rough and tumble, and we fight. All with the single goal of survival. Survival does not, of itself, endorse progress. Progress is a uniquely human undertaking, which strives to improve the quality of life for as many as possible - for those with access to a better quality of life, typically offered by their civilization. There is no requisite of the necessitation for contempt and competition. With a clear scientific roadmap, the way forward is merely a matter of time. Engineering seeks to find and employ the most optimal solutions possible. Scientists and mathematicians seek to find what is possible, and create the tools necessary to understand it. It then becomes an effort of trial and error, in the truest sense, without the need for trivial human ethics in its way. A system perpetually at war with itself, is no system at all.

@@mito._ But the rat utopia experiment seems to suggest that without a sense of purpose, society collapses. P.S. I'll probably revisit this comment in a couple years and have no idea what I meant...

that can create huge inappropriate group if set to restricted mode. and with huge community that would be huge disaster , you know like isis 🤷‍♂correct me if wrong`

@@rogueanuerz yes it's going into the anonymity problem If it's public it is not really a big deal i think, the law is still there and intelligence watching for dangerous ideas But whether you allow or ban these echo chamber, they will still find a way to form somewhere Maybe it's better to let these echo chamber form where they have an easly acces to other source of influence by looking at another community or switching mode ? I think it will depend on the rules and moderation of each modes, and if different platform would adopt this modele but gives différent rules and moderation, you could see what work and what doesn't But maybe i'm to hopeful to see a big social network adopt that, maybe a niche new one tried already or will do

Select censorship level: (◯══) Woke - I am not a responsible adult and am triggered by dissenting opinions. (══ ⬤) Based - I am a responsible adult and can think for myself and make my own decisions.

​@@williambarnes5023 The bias in your comment is hilarious

@@crazydragy4233 It's also accurate. My goal isn't to be unbiased. It's to be very strongly biased towards reality.

that is noy science but human. callnit religiouse. ... to end a few discussions. one could say "lets both agree, that we are dissagreeing" "i value your opnion although it is different then mine" or say "lets say we did, but then, we didn't" depending on the listener and or conversatiinal partner. you are doing excellent.

So, Tom... But now that you've mentioned it, it does sound like it.

@@rubicon24 *lol* of course. I hope I was entertaining.

haha, I had the same thought.

Ah, but Her Majesty is not the only person in the world, or even in Great Britain for that matter, authorized to grant knighthood.

@@bob_._. This is no longer the 17th, 18th, or 19th century, when anyone could blithely accept nobility titles from anyone (except in the USA), so there was a Prince William of Berlin in the British Royal Family, or Horatio Nelson, Duke of something Sicilian while being a serving Admiral of the British Navy. I don't know the rules for a British citizen accepting foreign titles (and knighthood is technically a title for life, like all future British titles), but it might not be easy. Unless it is a knighthood in the Society for Creative Anachronism or some other reenactment group, of course.

so glad i'm not the only one wondering about that

For starters it opens itself up to criticism of bigotry.

How in the world do you enforce that though.

for example. Trump makes the claim that he has created more jobs than any other president (about 7million new jobs before covid) but we quickly find that Obama created 8.5million over the first 3 years of his second term. Therefor, Trump's claim is easily proven as a lie and should be banned. It isn't "opinion" it is an outright lie.

@@timq6224 You say that, but beneath a repugnant con-merchants video, I found this an amazing quote to the extent of "When I go to share this video on Facebook, it's flagged as misleading. What is wrong?" even if you algorithmically debunk demonstrable falsehoods, you can't get through confirmation bias and instead feed their paranoia about deep state conspiracies - to them, it's the illuminati, New World Order or Lizard People (or some other euphemism they use to hide their real targets) stopping people from learning the truth

nobody likes a wiseguy...

That table top has no doubt been polished by many venerable posteriors from Faraday onwards.

What we didn't see is Tom asking if it was ok for him to sit on it.

@@DeclanMBrennan According to the RI's response to another relic worshipper, it is also the third replica of the original desk. "A desk is made to be used! This is the third copy of the original Faraday desk and each of them has seen chemical splashes, explosions and many famous bums."

We might've reached that point where deepfakes are indeed a significant threat. Only a matter of time now before we begin to *see* the consequences

The problem with that is that your definition of Good and Bad may not comport with my definition. That delineation must precede the intelligence that can divide things into Good and Bad based on any particular definition.

Good and what is Bad for humanity sounds a bit grand or quite big stakes for a chat

Regression.

The company might fold or simply close. Keeping the platform viable has costs that must be met somehow.

confusion. Advertising exists to inform the customer. Having a nice label is advertising. are labels now banned? it would mean there's a lot more effort necessary to find any given product you're after. Also, so many industries that rely on advertising will just die.

I'm pretty sure most websites would switch to subscription-based services. Or you would have an online "wallet" and every page you visit, your browser would automatically give them a penny. Your internet service provider would handle all that for you. 1,000 webpages = $10

@@Skooteh No, labels are not advertisements, they are logos on products. Advertisements are billboards or video commercials. A company can still put a logo on a product for sale, or their building.

I definitely share the feeling that his opinion is one I value, but that feels like more and more of a dangerous proposition these days.

You don't need to be an expert to give some insightful clues to a subject. Especially when you're honest enough to say "I don't know" or "there are other persons better qualified than me to answer that subject". He's giving us starting material to bootstrap our own thinking and research on that complex subject.

The ability to argue for or against one position effectively regardless of your own personal beliefs is skill common in academic settings. It is a very useful skill for critical thinking. Just my thoughts on why this might be the case here.

Communities where everyone agrees on something and dissenting voices are prohibited, so the same ideas are bouncing around forever like a like a literal echo chamber.

Ain't algorithmic targeting wonderful 🥴

I was around when Barbie was a new thing, but was not then nor now, in the marked for one. It really make me wonder if the algorithm is much better then just random.

Recommendation systems when used appropriately are a very powerful way of getting tedious tasks done fast and saving plenty of time for more interesting activities. The problem you're describing has nothing to do with the tool, the real issue is people being lazy and waiting for others to feed them with answer without even having to ask the questions. The only solution is to teach people their brain is not a passive memory sponge. And that a single isolated opinion, even when expressed by their best friend, should never be considered a universal absolute truth.

Asking repeated questions on Facebook is no different than asking them from Google, and then using that to drive the "organic" search, except that you use Google's algorithm's inherent biases rather than, frex, UKposts's.

@@davidweihe6052 In the Google case, people are helping themselves (vs FB, where they're asking others to spoon feed them, from knowledge other people already have). However in the FB case, the forums get clogged with the same questions over and over, making it inefficient for all other readers.

@@christianbarnay2499 The problem is, the reco systems have made people lazy. And the entire internet has gotten dumber as a result. The systems are only powerful when there are humans in the loop. However reco systems make the humans become passive (vs an active participant in the search). So the system loses intelligence, and the people become passive and controlled (i.e., they'll watch whatever is recommended, vs actively seeking out new things.)

@@andybaldman The reco system doesn't make people lazy. Lazy people have made their own decision to just follow the reco and stop looking for other options. As long as the search bar exists they have the option to seek various information sources by themselves. Lazy people are responsible for their own laziness. Blaming the reco system is just an excuse.

Maybe you watch a lot of tech videos?

Joao Pedro No, I don’t watch that many tech videos. I’ve turned off the recommended videos option. So I’m starting to see a wider variety coming through on my home page.

@@AtheistEve One would assume you got here by clicking on the link to this, one of the wider variety of videos that have been showing up on your home page. Unless you have autoplay turned on and let YT do the clicking for you.